June 14, 2004

REAGAN UNDER REVIEW

If anything is laid to rest with him at the end of this remarkable week, it ought to be the lazy condescension of the elites. That's all but indestructible, alas. Last Monday, the Washington Post and many other papers carried an Associated Press story by Adam Geller on Reagan's economic legacy which began, ''He had almost no schooling in economics ...'' Actually, that's one of the few things he did have schooling in: In 1932, he earned a bachelor's degree in social science and economics from Eureka College. I guess a certificate from Eureka just doesn't impress these reporters the way Bush's Yale Business School diploma impresses them.

In fact, it seems that the elites may be having second thoughts, albeit a couple of decades too late. Take this chat between CNN's Bernard Shaw and Wolf Blitzer, from Friday's broadcast:

Shaw:"Can I say something that touches at a very sensitive issue?"

Blitzer:"Of course."

Shaw:"The news media, and how we failed to thoroughly cover and communicate the very essences we're talking about, possessed by Ronald Reagan. What I've been reading and what I've been hearing, I did not get during his two terms in office. Or did I miss something?"

Blitzer:"I think you're on to something, Bernie."

Shaw:"I think we failed our viewers, listeners, and readers to an appreciable extent. I can't quantify it, but I'll, I'll put it there. Because I certainly missed a lot."

Blitzer:"I think you're absolutely right, Bernie. We've learned a lot more about this presidency in the years that have followed Ronald Reagan's two terms in office. And I suspect as more of his diaries, more of his papers, more of his speeches, more information is released by the presidential library in Simi Valley, we'll learn even a great deal more."

I was wrong about Ronald Reagan. Back in 1980 when the Republican primaries were being held I wanted George Bush (who later became 41st president) to win. My view reflected much of the conventional wisdom at the time. Reagan was a movie star. It was too old at the age of 69 to be commencing a presidential career. He did not seem to have the same background in national political responsibility as his Republican primary rival Bush.

No, they won’t take another look at Bush. That issue is still way way too “sensitive” for them. They don’t learn the lesson. They don’t, with any depth, apply lessons.

To the newsmannikins the lesson of 9/11/01 was—Get Al Qaeda to stop. And there the newsmannikins stop. To Bush the lesson was—Destroy Al Qaeda &, since the USA should have addressed root & branch of the Al Qaeda threat in the past, we should head off other gathering security threats at the pass rather than waiting for them to hit us hard at home—as they will, given bloodthirst, weaponized subcultures & mentalities, & ever increasingly available technologies adaptable for mass destruction.

Here's a good article by Max Boot which compares the media's attitudes towards Reagan and Bush. Lead paragraph:

Listening to the endless encomiums to Ronald Reagan, many from people who once derided him, I couldn't help wonder whether some day George W. Bush would receive similar tributes from his current enemies. It seems unlikely, even to me, but then it seemed pretty unlikely 20 years ago that the Gipper would ever win widespread acclaim as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.

Thanks, Barbara. I’ve said these things hundreds of different ways starting on 9/13/01, & this is the first time anybody has said “WOW.” Now I can go off to work (yes, on Sunday) in a particularly good mood, I have the sword of my summary to wield as the occasion ariseth. :-) —ForNow.

Remember that they are only backing away from their previous anti-Reagan stances because they have to. Reagan's victories were far too obvious to be denied any longer, and the public's love for the man runs deep.

Reminds of the old man in Catch-22. When the Germans marched into his town, he loved the Germans. When the Allies marched in, he loved the Allies. Just like the press now loves Reagan.

Before switching over to C-Span's coverage of the Reagan funeral because CNN was so irritating, I listened to Wolf Blitzer mention several times how classy President Mbeki of South Africa was to attend the funeral.

In Wolf's addled brain, South Africa (read: the ANC) was a "victim" of Reagan's "constructive engagement" policies. (The same policy followed or encouraged by the Democrats in China, Vietnam, Cuba, etc.)

The same sanctions policies being encouraged by the Left against South Africa in the '80's were decried as genocidal in Iraq in the '90's. But of course that didn't occur to Blitzer.

I really believe that very few news readers have the requisite analytic skills to determine why things happen in the world.

A few weeks ago, the CNN morning anchor woman interviewed a teenager who had won the National Geography Bee. His correct answer was "Khyber Pass". She expressed astonishment that he had ever heard of the Khyber Pass. He replied that Afghanistan had been in the news, what with the war and everything. She looked chagrin as she thought about it. Unbelievable.

I saw that exchange on CNN, and though I hate to burst anyone's bubble of expectation that they might actually be "getting it", the fact of the matter is the exchange lasted only about 30 seconds before groupthink set back in with "but there were problems" or something to that effect.

The media's "getting it" seemed mostly to consist of stunned "my god they really liked him" exclamations regarding the American public. The media out of touch with the "man on the street"? Let me die of shock.